What would you have done different?

[Ian Royal]

LOL @ replacing the very decent Johnson with PhiLOL Jones just to satisfy your Liverpool hate.

bigger LOL at thinking Johnson was decent

Did well against Italy with all the problems coming down the left. Set up the equaliser against Uruguay, less good in that game, but so was the whole team.

[jd82]

LOL @ replacing the very decent Johnson with PhiLOL Jones just to satisfy your Liverpool hate.

bigger LOL at thinking Johnson was decent

Did well against Italy with all the problems coming down the left. Set up the equaliser against Uruguay, less good in that game, but so was the whole team.

I'll give you a decent run/cross (albeit deflected) for the Uruguay goal.

Not sure what your first point really means

[Whatevs]

the very decent Johnson .

[Victor Meldrew]

- Taken and started John Terry
- Taken and started Ashley Cole
- Dropped Gerrard after the Italy game, Woy didn't have the balls. (or even hauled him off at half time in the Italy game)
- Put Lampard on with about 20/25 mins to go in both games instead of players with no big game experience like Lambert and Lallana etc.
- Played Rooney in his preferred position and play Sturridge out wide v Italy.

My son, a bigger Chelsea fan than you
.

I didn't realise your son had been going regularly to Chelsea for over 26 years, even when we were in Division 2. Did he ever go in the old Shed, or West Stand Benches? I might have seen him if so.

Did your mum take you in the pram?.
My son has been going there regularly since whatever year it was that Kerry Dixon was transferred there and has been a season ticket holder for the past 20 years and (regrettably) has a CFC tattoo on his upper arm.
Unlike you he is a regular at home games and goes to some away games and...top this, he has a daughter called....Chelsea.
For all of this I blame his mother.

[No Fixed Abode]

Link?

[Hoop Blah]

I'm not sure there is a long list of things you could do differently.

Personally I'd probably have used Lallana more and perhaps made slightly different substitutions, but essentially it came down to key moments in both of the two first games. If we'd taken a couple more chances we'd be having a totally different conversation about this afternoons game and the progress we've seen over the last 2 or 3 tournament performances. At least this time around we've actually looked more positiv and attacking and even played with a bit more freedom at times.

A few moments of slack defending, poor finishing and the obvious hard luck story of most beaten sides of poor refereeing, and it looks like one of our worst World Cup campaigns ever.

For those that are claiming they'd have not played or perhaps even taken Gerrard, who else would you have played? Who else has his range of passing or the capability to deliver a special moment at times? Tom Huddlestone? Michael Carrick? Would Ashley Cole really have been better as an exposed lef back than Baines considering he couldn't get a game for Chelsea and, for all his great performances over the years was never infallible.

Costa Rica are an interesting comparison though. They managed to beat both the side we've lost to, but it's not as simple as that is it. Was facing a lacklustre and Suarez-less Uruguay the same proposition as playing the team we did in the circumstances we did? Did Italy really approach their game as switched on and up for it as they would've done our game?

In the end we lost two close games against two decent teams. Not teams that are likely to win the thing, but teams at a similar level to us. As frustrating and depressing as that is there is no great shame in really is there?

Long term we do need to find a way of churning out more players capable of making those key moments fall our way and I think that is totally a mental thing rather than technical.

[Ginger Ninjas]

Obvious point is that we don't have the good enough players to win it, especially not when going toe-to-toe with world class players or teams with a majority of competent passing footballers. My approach, to try and get as far in the competition, would have therefore been to play a team like this...

Hart

RB (whoever is best at crossing)
Cahill
Terry (I completely agree with his non-selection, but him and Cahill are the best partnership)
Baines

Sidwell
Cattermole
Noble

Carroll
Crouch
Lambert

The midfield three could be virtually any run-of-the-mill PL centre midfielders who are prepared to run about and tackle (tbf, you could probably put Rooney in here). Tactics would obviously be lump it to the front three and hope to cause as many problems as possible. Sure, it's not pretty, but in my view more likely to be effective than trying to out-play sides who blatently possess more technique.

No chance of this happening, of course, and I can understand the squad which Hodgson selected, but think that for England to reach the latter stages of a international tournament they've got to try something different!

[Hoop Blah]

1) We generally do make the latter stages of a tournaments
2) That limited approach just doesn't work against teams that can keep the ball effectively and drag the midfield and defensive shape around at will. You have, to an extent, stop them having too much of the ball by keeping it a bit more yourself and being a bit more intelligent about creating your own chances.

Although we didn't play amazingly well we still created more chances and kept Uruaguay pretty quiet for the majority of the second game.

[Extended-Phenotype]

For once it's England visa versa.

Normally we are picking up points after playing like utter miserable shite, the country is bored and angry with the turgid guff on the pitch but we break out of the group and occasionally go a step further. Results > Performances.

This time we played some good football, looked competitive against good sides, attacked a lot and played better as a team and yet failed to pick up the points needed to get out of the group. Performances > Results.

Having watched a lot of games this WC, there are few teams that have played consistently game to game or throughout the same game. I think we were unlucky against Italy and Uruguay. If we got a little tighter on Pirlo and tried to hold onto the draw against Uruguay rather than go for the win, I think we'd have escaped a difficult group and grown in confidence.

In all honestly I can't think of much I would have changed but genuinely looking forward to the future where we can wave goodbye to the last of the old guard and see where we go with the new breed of unscarred, fresh talent.

[Royalclapper]

Told the pilot to leave the engines running.

[No Fixed Abode]

HT - 0-0 v Costa Rica.

We look better.

[melonhead]

essentially it came down to key moments in both of the two first games.

this. winning world cups is essentially random.


one day, far in the future i forsee a world cup where england get the marginal decisions and luck that enable them to win the thing

At least this time around we've actually looked more positiv and attacking and even played with a bit more freedom at times.

agreed- its a first step. to break away from the old ethos and style, and encourage the yoof to play nice football without fear
unfortunately this is almost bound to end up with us giving away silly goals to individual defensive errors initially

[LUX]

why oh why oh why did Pirlo destroy us (again), and yet be invisible all season and in Italy's other two Group games He did as much damage to us as Suarez.

[BR2]

why oh why oh why did Pirlo destroy us (again), and yet be invisible all season and in Italy's other two Group games He did as much damage to us as Suarez.

This also was supposedly the best prepared England side of all time.
How long ago was the draw made?
Everybody but everybody knows that Italy's play is dictated by Pirlo just as England's is by Gerrard.
In Gerrard's case the opposition closed him down quickly making him generally ineffectual.
In Pirlo's case we just let him play.
Dire planning, or lack of it, by England but never mind ,it was a happy camp and the players all thought they did well which is all that matters .

[melonhead]

In Pirlo's case we just let him play.
Dire planning, or lack of it, by England but never mind ,it was a happy camp and the players all thought they did well which is all that matters .

the decision to put sterling on pirlo was utterly laughable, and he performed exactly as youd expect him to in that role

[stealthpapes]

Few thoughts, in no order.

1) Inspired by a Guardian below-the-line comment, when was the last time England did a tactical job on a team? Identified a key threat and did something different to deal with it? In fact, when was the last time England showed a level of tactical acumen above "throw the best players into some formula and let them play their game"? Do you honestly think other teams think like this?

2) While the games were won and lost over small errors, it boils down to the same problems - a lack of technique and a lack of ability to play anything other than a 100 % chase every ball English game. Later on in the game, more mistakes made and they are punished.

3) The final autopsy of the campaign was just the same as the last few. Same comments made. Is it boring yet?

[Hoop Blah]

Reading between the lines I think we played Sterling in and around Pirlo to be able to get closer to him more quickly to apply some pressure (which he didn't really do enough of) but more importantly for Sterling to use his pace and directness to exploit the spaces that Pirlo leaves (which he Sterling did very well).

It's a gamble as to how much the positives outweigh the negatives, but on the balance of play we did alright against them (ultimately not well enough of course) even if Pirlo had too much time and space to dictate things.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Few thoughts, in no order.

1) Inspired by a Guardian below-the-line comment, when was the last time England did a tactical job on a team? Identified a key threat and did something different to deal with it? In fact, when was the last time England showed a level of tactical acumen above "throw the best players into some formula and let them play their game"? Do you honestly think other teams think like this?

2) While the games were won and lost over small errors, it boils down to the same problems - a lack of technique and a lack of ability to play anything other than a 100 % chase every ball English game. Later on in the game, more mistakes made and they are punished.

3) The final autopsy of the campaign was just the same as the last few. Same comments made. Is it boring yet?

Disagree with point (2). We didn't chase enough in my opinion. Italy were leisurely walking around the midfield under no pressure, England players just stupid looking trees in the distance.

If (at least one of) Gerrard and Henderson chased and harried like Uruguay and Costa Rica did, perhaps Pirlo wouldn't have yet again ruined things for England.

When we don't have the ball, England don't go anywhere near it.

Disagree with point (3) as well, come to think of it - as I said above somewhere, this tournament has been polar opposite to the last lot: promising performances without the results vs frustratingly awful performances with promising results.

[double d]

End of the day we are not good enough as a team of footballers as a whole. We never will be good enough.

[Hoop Blah]

Few thoughts, in no order.

1) Inspired by a Guardian below-the-line comment, when was the last time England did a tactical job on a team? Identified a key threat and did something different to deal with it? In fact, when was the last time England showed a level of tactical acumen above "throw the best players into some formula and let them play their game"? Do you honestly think other teams think like this?

That's a decent point. I'm sure the management would say they have tweaked things tactically for the opposition at times (Sterling's role v Italy being one I would guess) but we probably don't do it as obviously as someone like Rodgers does at club level.

Playing devils advocate I'd also suggest that we adjusted tactically to this tournament more than anything. The lack of pressing and chasing in the build up games was very noticeable and much the same in Italy game. I'd say that was quite an obvious tactical change to combat the heat which would've killed us if we'd chased as normal in Manaus.

2) While the games were won and lost over small errors, it boils down to the same problems - a lack of technique and a lack of ability to play anything other than a 100 % chase every ball English game. Later on in the game, more mistakes made and they are punished.

As above, I don't think we were this chase every ball team that we have been in the past. We were a lot more controlled in and out of possession. All teams made more mistakes later in games, it's inherent in all games.

Our failure did ultimately come down to not being able to make the right decisions or execute with the right technique at the crucial moments but the same can be said of most other teams, we just tend to focus on the negative of our own teams and more of the positive in other teams.

3) The final autopsy of the campaign was just the same as the last few. Same comments made. Is it boring yet?

It's not really the same though is it? The way we played and the way we failed was quite different to the stoic and dull approach of the last two or three tournaments where we seemed crippled by fear of losing.

None of the above is meant to suggest everything was rosey, and that some of the points about tactical approach and lack of technique (mental or physical) aren't valid, it just seems to be a series of points made that aren't totally relevant to the performances.